forget

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Hide' hints at a reversible soft-delete rather than a permanent removal, but it never states whether the memory can be restored, what permissions are needed, or what the response confirms — critical omissions for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient but so terse that the economy comes at the cost of specification rather than from trimming redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Return values are covered by the output schema, but with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition should explain soft-delete reversibility, the meaning of 'reason,' and how it differs from update_memory or supersede. None of that is present, so the description is thin for a two-parameter mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. memory_id is only obliquely implied by 'a memory,' and the 'reason' parameter goes entirely unmentioned, so an agent learns nothing about what to put in either field beyond the schema's bare titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Hide a memory') plus the two conditions that trigger it: an erroneous save or a user request to remove. The word 'hide' meaningfully distinguishes it from a hard delete and leans toward soft-deletion semantics versus siblings like supersede or update_memory, though it never names those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear triggering contexts ('should not have been saved' or 'the user asked to remove'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It offers no when-not conditions and does not point to alternatives such as update_memory for corrections or supersede for replacement, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.